Posted
by
Hemos
on Monday October 21, 2002 @12:50PM
from the create-your-own-nation dept.

Psychic Burrito writes "From their website: The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy." Perhaps they should also read Everything: Kansas. I think Don Marti was also the one who thought the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota.

This plan would work if the 10th Ammendment actually meant something. Anything the new 'liberated' state tries to do will be summarily shut down and/or harrassed by the feds - from witholding highway funds to them simply coming in on federal level and enforcing whatever draconian BS they feel like.

The idea is great in theory, but I can't imagine how it could work in todays less ideal world.

which coup was that ?
the one that the supreme court , in keeping with the idea of equal protection under the law, declared that the previously agreed to (by both parties) election rules . When an attempt to change the rules only in some areas was looked at the court declared no. Stating that all local areas be reperesented equally is very much in line with the previous post that states rights have been guarded closely lately , local rights are also guarded .

Now if we would like to talk about local areas rights to pass laws like assisted-suicide or medical marijuana , we can then see the rights of the states being squashed , but not in your so called "coup"

Highway funds can be persuasive. I believe it was the threatened withdrawl of highway funds that forced Montana to adopt a daytime speed limit, which they didn't have.

Honestly, having the same speed limit for the overpopulated, hilly, crowded East and the great plains of the West, where you can see other cars a mile off, is just having a rule for the sake of having a rule. It's a fine proof by example that there's a maximum number of people one government can represent effectively.

Yes, because you need to be 21 to be old enough to drink.It is much more important that you are that old to drink. Stuff like the following really doesn't require that much responsiblity.VoteJoin the armyDrive a carHave sex (and children)WorkPay taxesOwn a gun

[People under the age of 21 in the U.S. can]VoteJoin the armyDrive a carHave sex (and children)WorkPay taxesOwn a gun

Yeah good thing we don't let those kids drink

I think that the key is that they can't do those things AND drink until they're 21. As an aside, don't you think that the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [treas.gov] must have the best office parties?

That's what I thought. When I joined it was 21 in almost every state (Iowa and maybe another were 18 still, I think), so it was 21 on base almost everywhere. I didn't get deployed out of the country till I was 21 so I never gave any thought about it. I do know that we didn't have anything stronger than Kool-Aid in Saudi. As one guy there said, "silly bathrobe guys don't even allow beer! BEER!"

The threat to withold highway funds is only persuasive to some states: those states which have more roads, per capita, then their tax base would ordinarily support.

But if the federal government withholds your highway funds, they still make you pay your taxes to support them. In other words, even if you're paying more into the highway system than you're getting out, it's still a better deal than getting NOTHING out. So it's persuasive to every state whose citizens pay federal taxes - i.e. every state in the country.

The current Supreme Court likes the 10th Amendment when a state wants to do something traditionally considered "conservative" (even if they have to ignore the 14th amendment in the process of giving the state its way), but when a state wants to do something traditionally considered "liberal", the Supreme Court backs the feds. The best example of the latter is medical marijuana.

The problem wasn't with the Supreme Court finding Florida's election standards to be unconstitutional(a 7-2 decision). The problem was their remedy(the 5-4 decision).

First, they ignored the dozen or so other states that used the exact same "unconstitutional" standard and allowed their results.

Second, they didn't propose a valid set of standards to replace the set they were invalidating.

Third, despite finding those standards to be unconstitutional, they then proceeded to accept the certified totals... which were tallied under a standard they just said was invalid.

Additionally, the majority stated that a recount that showed Bush not winning might tarnish his victory. No sh*t, huh?

Combined with the aforementioned inconsistancy and their statements that this shouldn't be used as precedent, one can see how transparently partisan the decision was.

If the Supreme Court wanted to act in a non-partisan fashion, they would've found the standards to be unconstitutional, laid out a new set of standards and then ordered a new recount under those standards.

If the Supreme Court wanted to act in a non-partisan fashion, they would've found the standards to be unconstitutional, laid out a new set of standards and then ordered a new recount under those standards.

First, it's not the Supreme Court's job to design such systems. Doing so would be usurping the legislative power, both from the US Congress and the Florida Legislature. The Supremes can design some remidies, but they're both very limited and very reluctant to attempt to go there.

Second, there was a limited time to act. If the election was not certified in time to hand the list of electors off to the Fed by a particular date, there were two choices left:

1) Florida would have no voice in the selection of the president.

2) The Florida legislature could chose a slate of electors and send them.

1) would have resulted in a Gore win and 2) in a Bush win (given that the Florida Legislature was Republican dominated). EITHER would have disenfranchised the direct voters (the first just dumping them, the second replacing them with the voters for the legislature in previous elections). This despite the presence of an arguably adequate vote count, certified by the appropriate official by the then-in-force procedures.

So the Supremes took the minimum-waves course, spiked the intervention by the Florida Judicial branch, and with the decision of the duly-chosen Florida Executive branch official, who had operated by the laws in force during the election.

> They've been coming down in favor of states over the federal government whenever possible.

I think that the ultimate test of this will be when the California medical marijuana clubs get their cases escalated to the supreme court. Ashcroft et al are consistently trumping federal law over state law when it comes to the "War" on Drugs. Handcuff parapalegics and victims of wasting diseases and confiscate their doctor-prescribed medicine? Yes, let's!I call this the ultimate test because of what it is: a purportedly unpopular cause running orthogonal to a giant hype machine and billions of dollars in the pockets of people with friends in high places, where the states have different laws than the federal government does.

Anything the new 'liberated' state tries to do will be summarily shut down and/or harrassed by the feds - from witholding highway funds

But then again, if you are truely 'liberated', you wouldn't accept highway funds from the Feds in the first place.

Highway funds are another form of welfare, used to keep states, and the public and private road-building entities in agreement with federal policies, and by some estimates these funds amount to over $100 billion.

In addition to finding a state which can survive a complete withdrawal of federal funding is the necessity of finding a state where a relatively small number of people can actually affect the political momentum.

Based on figures on state population [mikesart.net] and voter turnout [fairvote.org], Wyoming may be the best choice. Wyoming has a population of roughly 500,000 and a voter turnout of roughly 58%. Given that voting in state and municipal elections is on average about 18% lower than voting in federal elections, this gives us about 200,000 people voting in the state elections. Twenty thousand people makes up ten percent of that number(actually, i guess nine percent technically). This may not be enough to get whoever you want elected as governor or senator, but it's certainly enough to make a very strong impact on the state level and probably to completely sway the results on the municipal level, especially if they all move to the same city(although a sudden influx of 20,000 people into Laramie, WY would certainly cause one hell of a housing and public services nightmare).

On the other hand, according to these stats [state.wy.us], if they could drum up 85,000 people, they could get their own representatives elected to every Wyoming state office(presuming that all of their members voted and that this influx did not cause a corresponding dramatic increase in Wyoming voter turnout.

The unmentioned problem I see in all of this is... what are these people going to DO in states like Wyoming? I mean, it's not like I can just up and move around the country at a whim. I have to go where I can find work for goodness sakes: you can't tell me that the economy of Wyoming is just up and ready to accept 85,000 people all at once, even if many of them are entrepenuers. It would take years to even build enough housing, and there are all sorts of huge capital investments to worry about how to fund.

Montana not dependent on federal funds? It receives $1.75 in federal funding for every $1 it pays in federal taxes. Urban states on the East and West coast are the opposite: they pay more in federal taxes than they receive, effectively subsizing the rural heartland.

The following is an excerpt from a Paul Krugman column in the May 7, 2002 NY times, responding to the recent 180-billion farm subsidy bill. (He's comparing the "red" states, the mostly rural heartland states that voted for Bush, to the "blue" states, mostly urban regions on the coasts, that voted for Gore.)

But what's really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it's the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite. Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America's rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

There's no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it's a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations -- mainly, though not entirely, red states -- disproportionate representation in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the Senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.

But while this raw political clout is a fact of life, at least we can demand an end to the hypocrisy. The heartland has no special claim to represent the "real America." And the blue states have a right to ask why, at a time when the federal government has plunged back into deficit, when essential domestic programs are under assault, a small minority of heavily subsidized Americans should feel that they are entitled to even more aid.

The farm bill should be axed. These libertarians would work toward that goal, even though many of their candidate States are the small rural ones. The point they're trying to make is that we should be self-reliant rather than forcing someone else to pay for our desires. It's called living on principle, rather than getting your senators to "bring home the bacon".

Many people think the electoral college is a "broken" system. Most of these people are liberals who live in the large, urban States supposedly harmed by it.

However, saying that having two senators from Wyoming is unfair when New York only gets two overlooks one important fact: the Senate represents the individual States as collective bodies. The House is the legislative body that represents the popular (people's) will. Wyoming is not overrepresented in the Senate (or EC), it is equally represented. An equivalent argument would be, "Why does that one State of California get 50 seats in the House but our State of Wyoming only gets 1? That's not fair!" That doesn't make much sense either, does it?

The USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. It is a voluntary coalition of States - the people formed the States, then the States formed a Union. (At least, that's the idea.) For the first 80 years, a State's right to secession was never questioned, and secession threats were frequently used as leverage in Congress, particularly by New England States.

You need to realize that our bicameral legislature is a compromise between these two views. You need to represent the people, yet provide a check against the tyranny of the majority. (That's why we're not a democracy, though we pick leaders democratically.) You need a government big enough to defend us all and appear unified to the world, yet small enough to be responsive to local issues and sensitivities. (That's why we have a federal, not a centralized monolithic, system.)

The electoral college is an attempt at uniting both interests in the case of a singular office. The President needs to represent the American people (as individuals), and he needs to represent the united States (individually as well, case is intentional). For this, it works well. Without it, the 5 or 6 largest States, ruled as they are by their urban centers, would dominate the presidential races. One, there's already little incentive to campaign in Wyoming - without the EC there would be effectively none. Two, this would amount to urbanites, who have no clue about the realities of rural life, picking the man who has the final say on legislation that affects the ruralites. The culture of large cities is much the same no matter where they are, but the culture of rural America varies greatly with geography. This is why the EC is essential - it protects the interests of the States as well as the People during the selection of the President. Just as having Congress divided into two branches serves both interests, and checks the power of "large" over "small" and vice versa.

The FSP, by working against government control of farmers and rural America, would remove the need for government subsidy of the same. This country got along fine for over 100 years without farm subsidies. It used to be that government essentially gave away land to anyone who could prove they'd develop it effectively. One of the Laura Ingalls books states that the American farmer is one of the freest men around, earning his own way by his own sweat, beholden to no one. How things have changed in 110 years! Now, by taking gov't money, the farmer is obligated to submit to gov't micromanagement telling him where and what he can plant, how much he can plant, and what price he'll get. (Which is never quite enough to get him free of gov't dependency.) As if that wasn't enough, gov't is now trying to reclaim the land, taking it out out of useful production, because of "eco-friendly" legislation.

Speaking as a conservationist (as opposed to an environmentalist, though they should have an appreciation for this argument), the land/resources are underrepresented in a strictly population-based apportionment. Rural, by definition, means lots of land with few people. Who better to make decisions for these resources than the State that includes them and the people who live on them? They have a vested interest in wise use of said resources. This is another good reason for having States represented equally in the Senate, and counting toward EC electors. Without this, urban States would tend to act cavalierly toward resources not in their domain. This sort of trampling of property rights is happening anyway, as mentioned above.

FWIW, the "break" between large/small States as far as EC representation is about 11 electors. From 10-12, as of the 2000 census, the % representation closely reflects the nation.

A little fact of reality that people often neglect is that these subsidizations that the midwest states recieve are simply helping pay farmers back for the gross amount of loss that is incurred while producing food.

Fine. Then let people who can farm at a profit do so. New Zealand has had no farm subsidies since the early eighties, exports most of its produce, and does so successfully in spite of the horrif tarrif barries and dumping scams perptrated by countries such as the United States.

The only reason food subsidies are needed is because tarrif barriers lock efficient food producers out of the US markets in favour of inefficient local producers.

Your farmers are a landed aristocracy living off the fat of urban taxpayers, who are stupid enough to defend their right to do so with bullshit arguments.

Having driven the autobahn regularly.. An accident on the autobahn is not fatal usually because rarely are the collisions head on. And most cars that you buy that go that fast can actually handle the accident well.

An example, I was driving my BMW 5'er on the Swiss Autobahn. I was doing about 100 MPH and suddenly a huge brick fell off a truck. It struck my left front wheel. Result? My rim and tire were scrapped. But the BMW was still steerable and at that speed I could come to a controlled stop and look at my accident. Then I went to BMW dealer to check if there were any hidden damages. They did some tests and said all was ok. Moral? BMW's cost more, but they are safe.

The only time accidents on the Autobahn are fatal is when you strick a tree. Trees have this nasty habit of not budging one cm when something at hit speed strikes it.

And yes I once witnessed a mercedes roll at 120 MPH. The guy got out of the car with no scratches to himself. The Mercedes was scrap.

Jebediah: People, our search is over! On this site we shall build a new
town where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast
fields of hemp for making rope and blankets.
Shelb.: Yes, _and_ marry our cousins.Jebediah: I was -- what are you talking about, Shelbyville? Why would
we want to marry our cousins?
Shelb.: Because they're so attractive. I, I thought that was the
whole point of this journey.Jebediah: Absolutely not!
Shelb.: I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right
to marry their cousins.Jebediah: Well, then, we'll form our own town. Who will come and live a
life devoted to chastity, abstinence, and a flavorless mush I
call rootmarm?

So let me get this straight:20,000 people who prize individual freedom above all else will move into a state and then trample over the wishes of the previous populace to get their preferred form of government enacted.

How are you going to find 20k people who always agree 100% on all of the issues listed on the website, will unanimously agree on all unforseen issues that will come up in the future, and will diligently vote on every single issue, achieving an unheard of 100% voter turnout rate?

That, and they will be free of all local taxes.

So won't they also be "free of all local services," too? Who's going to pay to plow/pave/patrol the streets?

Perhaps at first it will seem as it worked out. But when they reached some goals they'll probably fall out with each other over little issues.
I am not trying to look into a crystal ball, I am just pondering about it, thinking about other coaltions of people.

According to the FAQ they believe with 20k supporters they could control a state with a population of 1.5M or less. How 20k votes outweigh 1.5M is one of the small details they don't explain. I wonder if they will get it figured out before the tanks roll into their compound.

Well you need to look at the percentage of those 1.5M that actually vote. In most areas, only a small percentage of people vote. That combined with the fact that a lot of votes are relatively close with the winner winning by just a small percentage of the vote, it conceiveable that 20,000 is a big enough number to sway most if not all of the votes.

Anyone living in a college town can see a similar concept in action. Where I attend school, the college population is roughly equal to the non college population, when important issues come up that affect the students, but have little to do with the town, the students are more likely to vote than the townies.

Yes, but the state is not going to vote 55/45 on the issues they want, like:

"We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs. We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws. We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns. We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain. We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy."

11% of the population in a state with 1.5M would be 165k. 20k = 1.3%. So if the state regularly votes 51.3/48.7 on a given issue, perhaps they could sway it. More likely they would sway it by campaigning and lobbying, but still 20k people is pretty inconsequental in the larger scheme of general population votes. They could win local seats if all 20k move into the same county for instance, but this still would leave very limited power. Its a start I supposes.

Yes, but you're making the very mistaken assumption that 100% of the population votes.

Since the realistic number is closer to 30% of registered voters, and roughly 50% of the people are registered, the number shrinks drastically - you're talking about 250k voters here. If you manage to get all 20k of your culti... er, devoted followers to vote (and vote the same way) then you have an 8% voting block which is pretty significant.

The reason that this is often the case is that the two parties often have very similar agendas. Sure, your 11% might get the final say between two alternatives. But it seems unlikely that one of those two alternatives is an utter removal of the state government. It is only possible to use the position tip the scales over from one popular position to another - it is not possible to push through an independent and controverisal agenda.

On that note, I have one thought for the people that are going to attempt this:

Remember Waco, TX

Now that the cult members weren't crazy and everything, but it just shows that people who want to not be under the control of the US government in the US may end up looking down the business end of a government issue sub machine gun.

This just in: it appears that Oobleck has reached the finals in Solo Mental Gymnastics--Freestyle Event. Starting with "Wouldn't it be nice if my neighbors shared my views on important political issues, and we all voted", this incredible athlete vaulted an amazing distance, to land squarely in "we're a compound-living, arms-stockpiling, demagogue-worshipping cult, based on the teachings of a madman, and eligible for government antiterroist action".

This unbelievable leap, executed without any intermediate steps, has broken world records, and is virtually guaranteed to win Oobleck the gold this year. The sheer audacity of the maneuver is sure to win the hearts of many moderators here today. Let's wish this great athlete the best of luck.

They'll probably expect to write their own laws, yet still have police and military protection from the US. They'll also expect the US Government to not let utility companies gouge them in prices, and they'll likely expect constant infrastructure improvements, such as highway building/maintenance.

Basically this is another dumb "We want our Utopia, and we want you to pay for it" ideas. I would propose heavy import/export taxes on them, as well as border patrols, and random searches of vehicles crossing the borders.

But the question is, "Which State?" Basically they all suck. The Northeast is too crowded and cold. The Dakotas? Minnesota? No thanks, waaaaayyyyyy too cold for me. Perhaps the answer is in AZ or NM. Aren't there significant numbers of native Americans there, forced into squalid living conditions on Federal "reservations", that would be only too willing to negotiate a new deal for themselves? Instant constituency.

1) Arizona has WAAAAAY too many people here to try something like that. The Phoenix metro is huge, over 7 million people.

2) The Native Americans are in no way forced to live on reservations, they are US citizens and may live in any city in the US they choose. There are more than plenty that DO live in one of the cities in Arizona, or just move out of the state.

But most great ideas seem to be lacking in practical application. This one, however, does have some interesting strategies.

My issues:

1) Family. I can't convince my parents, and my wife's parents to pick up and move. I don't want to seperate my children from their grandparents.:P2) Professional Saturation. Lets just face it, Ted Knight was right when he said "The world needs ditch diggers too." There will be a ton of other smart guys out there. My profession (consulting) is all about being smart for other people.

If you can solve these issues(don't see how you can with #1)... I'm there.

A bigger issue: How 20,000 people are going to take over a whole state when the main political parties will outnumber them almost 100 to 1? In order to enact these changes you have to get elected, and 20,000 votes isn't enough to make you governer or win a majority in a state house or senate.

Lets just face it, Ted Knight was right when he said "The world needs ditch diggers too."

Very true. Huxley made a similar observation in Brave New World. As I remember it, the story went that a bunch of the "Alphas" (the highly intelligent upper caste of the society) decided to set up their own exclusive, autonomous society without the lower castes, as a social experiment. Within a short few years, they were in a state of total civil war: the survivors begged to be readmitted to the dominant society. Imagine that flamewar.

The lesson here, I suppose, is that the working class cannot be replaced by very small shell scripts. (It'd take some serious Perl magic.)

Some states in that bunch have a history of liberty-mindedness, making it able to make use of existing population, and some of em are small enough that 20,000 voters could have a profound effect on any state-wide votes.

Of course, 20,000 votes goes a long way in any state with close elections. Maybe they should all move to Florida, instead... more electoral votes, anyway.

Vermont, that little liberal bastion of the North, may be a good choice.

Here are a few reasons:

1 Small Population (about half a million), so a group of dedicated citizens can have an effect.

2 Open minded politics already exist. For example, Vermont recognizes Civil Unions between homosexual couples and the state uses an inovative and effecitve plan buy perscription drugs at reduced cost (also known as Canada).

3 Enviromentally friendly state.

4 Large producer of high quality pot.

Of course, Vermont is currently doing quite well, some othere states could use this groups efforts quite a bit more.

"What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs. We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws. We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns. We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.

We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy."

While in principle I agree with the objection to unconstitutional laws I have a real problem with privatizing everything. I see street-sweeping, electricity, etc. as one of the reasons for government. As Enron, and Colifornia have shown private companies cannot be trusted with basic infrastructure. And, as At&T, the RIAA, and AOLTW have shown eliminating all regulation is the best way to encourage monopolies.

Go. Read up on Las Vegas. Note how the corporations involved were never involved with private armies and never used violence. Or Shell's involvement in Nigeria. Or copper mining companies in the South Pacific.

Companies don't use violence because they can't get away with it in most of the world you appear to be familiar with.

I don't know if the current inhabitants would mind too much, either. They seem to generally be hostile to the federal government. OTOH, without much of a manufacturing or service base, I think the econonmy probably is dominated by extractive industries such as mining and ranching. Thus, the choice between economic livlihood and a beautiful environment usually weighs in heavier on the former, since the local perspective is that there's "plenty enough" of the latter.

I had heard of something akin to this on a county level occuring in Oregon a few years ago, where enough Hare Krishna (?) adherents moved in to affect the makeup of the county government.

But from what little I remember of the Civil War / War Between the States, the federal government of the United States won't take kindly to secession.

When the US has control over a territory, we never want to let it go. Why would we even let these guys do this?

Take a look at this [phil-am-war.org] for some examples of territories we (the US) have made claim to. We've faught wars to protect these territories. You think that we would just give up some of it to a bunch of idealists who think they can make the perfect society?

The deciding factor in whether or not something like this will be successful, is how the courts (and supreme court) interpret the freedom of a state to create and practice law widely different than the 49 other states.

Remember that in the constitution, it is stated that no citizen shall be denied equal protection of rights, and importantly, that federal law is supreme when Congress speaks to a question of law (trumping state law). So citizens have an expectation that states will have a bascially consistent set of laws under which they can live. (the supreme court has taken cases which test the ability of states to "pioneer" new kinds of law, and this is contentious I believe)

Therefore, while it might be easy to get some measures passed (ones that no one would conceivably object to), other more controversial measures might be quite difficult. Just look at the medical marijuana thing in CA. The state says that it's ok, but the federal government says it isn't. And what happens? People get arrested for using and distributing it. Federal law has supremacy over local/state law, regardless of how charitable or well-intentioned.

I've been wondering about the Feds and the marijuana in California. Where does the Federal Government get the mandate to do anything in Californiat regarding that?

For most drugs, the source of the drug trade comes from outside the country, or perhaps between states. Thus it falls under Federal jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. However, if the marijuana is grown in California, sold in California, and never leaves California, then it should not be under Federal jurisdiction. If it is, then they're violating States' rights.

Remember when they passed the Federal law forbidding guns within a certain distance of schools? That was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court struck it down. Wish the Feds would learn to play by the rules as far as drugs are concerned. I think they should start having the medical marijuan tagged for origin and purpose in California. That would make it impossible for the Feds to claim jurisdiction or legal applicability.

this may have been pointed out already, but here is the "answer" to your "question": the Supreme Court has interpreted the 'Commerce Clause" to mean that Congress can legislate anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce (in my opinion, not an entirely absurd interpretation). thus, since the state of California growing marijuana AFFECTS the interstate drug trade, the Feds can intervene.

(For reference, the decision took place upon the situation of a farmer who grew his own feed, raised his own cattle, and sold it all only to people in his state. there was NO interstate commerce being conducted, so he wanted to be free from FDA regulations on clean meat. the US Supreme Court said no, he was participating in a fudamentally interstate trade, thus must follow Fed rules.)

"The Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.com/) calls for 20,000 libertarians and fellow-travelers to move to a single state of the U.S. to create a free society there through the electoral process."

So, I guess the libertarians are fed up with not winning elections. I wonder where the hell they are going to find 20,000 voting libertarians?

Ok, so, the idea is to move a whole shitload of people to one area and create a state where libertarianism rules supreme. This sounds vaguely like what the Mormons do, and they've got a good head start on us. You might get a significant constituency, or a city, but a state is certainly outside the grasp of this.

This idea was originally suggested by a group of American socialists back in about 1890, in the days when 20,000 people would actually let you form a territorial government, at a time when state governments had a hell of a lot more power than they do now. Didn't work out back then, either. Read any history of the Socialist Party or of Eugene Debs.

You know the world is going to hell when Libertarians start stealing ideas from 19th century socialists and passing them off as original.

I think Don Marti was also the one who thought the geeks should do this by moving en masse to North Dakota.

Hey, North Dakota's got such a low population right now, we'd be happy to have more people move here!

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society.

Let's see here, in our last election, Bush got 60% of the vote, so with a population of about 600,000 people, that means that roughly 400,000 of them are conservative. So, even if we have 20,000 liberals move here, that still won't change our conservative state!

Come to North Dakota!:) But I'm afraid that we won't let you make your own "free society." If you want to do that, move to Montana.

I can't wait to live in North Dakota or some other barren state that even eskimos don't want to live. Sorry, but I'm heading off to Costa Rica instead. Fun and sun baby.

Wish you guys the best. Can't wait to see how the an economy maintained by geeks goes. I can just see 'em building their own roads, handling their own refuse collection, etc... Oh well, crazy people have to do something with all their spare time.

Not one, but a large group of states tried this already: in 1860. They had a lot more people interested than a mere 20,000 or so, an existing infrastructure, a cause supported at least in theory by the majority, a cultural identity, and the best Army officers.

They still lost.

This won't work simply because a vast majority of people who join a movement like this are much more comfortable posting on a website blog, K5, or Slashdot than they are at moving to another state simply because of a website; many are crackpots that can agree with no one. There are no "rebel states" where even a significant minority resent being part of the US; whatever state it may be, the residents will instead resent a huge influx of wild-eyed dissidents. The movement is in the name of "liberty", which sounds good, but is an intentionally vague concept that people have a hard time agreeing on, particularly armchair politicians.

My prediction: It won't get off the ground. It's a project like the American Civil War, and the people who propose this kind of thing are far, far less suited to go through with it than their southern counterparts of 142 years ago.

Can anybody tell me why I shouldn't think of this as extremist or fanatical? Maybe I'm reading this in the wrong mood, but it seems to me like they're only trying to fix what they see wrong, as opposed to re-designing the system to be more useful. It doesn't seem like they understand why some things work the way they do.

"We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs." -- Define wasteful. There's some that think that healthcare coverage of birth control is 'wasteful'. Others think that unwanted pregnancies cause greater 'wasteful' heatlh expense.

"We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws." -- Who's to judge 'unconstitutional'? Not that I actively pay attention to cases like this, but there's always opposing views. Some think that a law may be unconstitutional, but others have a different perspective that says it is constitutional. So... where's the middle ground? Who's to judge?

They're asking me to donate money and sign a petition with promises of utopica, but other than pandering to my desires (no taxes! no gov't unfairness!) they're not providing me with any useful data about how they'd meet my needs.

So, no, I don't see value here. I would understand if they were saying "Let's get together all the 'like-minded about certain issues' people into one state", instead they're saying "let's create a land where the gov't can't intrude!".

Many folks have already likened this "clarion call" to the colonization of the New World lead by people seeking freedom from Britain. What this idea seems to ignore is one major thing that allowed freedom to work in the new work: DISTANCE. The American colonists could enact a number of laws that flew in the face of British standards because they were far enough away for British politicians to ignore.

Right now, I doubt there is anywhere on earth that is quite this way - transportation has made the world smaller and smaller, and most lands with any value already have indiginous peoples who are not likely to let some Americans in "to coexist peacefully and start our own government." Too much well-known history with the Indians.

So where is there a place out of reach of government by distance, where you might possibly find funding to get to and to develp, and where there are no indigiginous tribes to worry about? The moon! Simply find a corporation or society or extremely rich philanthropist willing to support the founding... until a hundred or so years later when they try to impose a tax on your tea and you have to mount a Revolution.

Canadian provinces can secede; Quebec keeps threatening to, and there have been close votes. Taking over a big province would be hard. But consider, say, Prince Edward Island, with a population of 138,000 spread over 5,600 square kilometers. That's a plausible province for this scheme.
20,000 determined people really could take it over.

Especially if they had real incomes. Only 7000 people on the island make over $50K.
Prince Edward Island is a money-loser, subsidized by the Canadian government. About 25% of the island's income is is social security or farm subsidies. Economic growth in 2001 was 0.1%. Main sources of income are fishing and potatoes. Yet it's a beautiful place. It could become a high-tech center like Ireland. And there's a bridge to the mainland now; it's not as isolated as it used to be. You can drive there from Boston in a day. It's even a nice summer vacation spot.

"What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal state taxes and wasteful state government programs.

Repeal state taxes? Sounds really nice. But remember we live in the United States of Litigiousness. In addition, you'll probably have to change the state constitution and that in itself will take no less than a decade.

Bottom line: repeal of state taxes won't happen for the generation that "starts" the independent state, but for the second generation.

We will end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws.

In this day and age of the "Patriot Act," CARNIVORE, and the overwhelming need for security (according to our current administration) there is no way that 20,000 or even 100,000 people could break the federal hold on states. Those who have tried on a much smaller basis (Ruby Ridge and Pine Ridge) are either dead or in prison.

We will repeal laws regulating drugs and guns.

And the federal authorities that you no longer collaborate will seize any and all public or private property that has anything to do with any type of (federally) illegal narcotic; and when you resist, the President will federalize your own National Guard to defeat you.

10th Amendment power has been whittled away for the past 250 years. It does not have enough power to over turn federal drug and weapons laws.

We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.

See above.

We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy.

Yeah, Jefferson Davis thought he could do the above too. Lincoln thought different. We all know what happened next.

There exists a delicate balance of power between the federal government and the 50 states. Before you go running off to create your own independent state, you may want to create some alliances with other states. If you go it alone (be it with 20,000 people) you will fail.

Don't forget history. It was not Washington and the Colonial army alone that defeated the British, it was the French Navy and Army with the Colonial army that defeated the British.

And a small request: after you have your own "free" state, work hard to call a federal constitutional convention, so that the Constitution can be changed.

After opting out of everything, I bet they'll still want protecting by the US Army, Navy and Air Force.

What is the federal government supposed to be, if not to defend the land from outside forces and to defend people from destroying each other's individual freedoms?

I think that it would be perfectly consistent of their Libertarian viewpoint to accept military protection from the federal government. They just won't accept abridgement of individual freedom in trade for it.

Exactly. Which part of the statement that the government exists to protect individuals from force and from fraud did the original poster not understand? In defense, the military is all about protecting from force.

They should definately locate themselves in Mass. so that I don't have to relocate. Since I live in Mass. and would love to be a part of anything that improves this lame-ass country. Not that I'm too lazy to move out of Mass. I guess.... I should probably read the article to makes sure it's not a lame-ass plan though.